Originally Posted by Thorgrim Funny I could have sworn the original post was about the Fox ad in MO, not MD I will give you credit though, the initials are only one letter apart and an O does look kinda like a D... There are two commercials for two candidates ...
| |||||||
 |
| Register to Post a Reply |
| | LinkBack (1) | Thread Tools |
10-24-2006, 07:23 PM
| #61 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster  Realist 
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim There are two commercials for two candidates in two states.
Did you bother to watch the 2nd one before commenting on it? | ||||
     |
|
10-24-2006, 08:14 PM
| #62 | ||||
| Banned  Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by 7960 If I wanted to talk about a MD ad, I'd make another thread...hey theres an idea, why don't you do that
| ||||
| |
|
10-24-2006, 10:07 PM
| #63 | ||||
| Last Starfighter  Independent Northern California
| The stem cell research lie is that babies are aborted just to provide a resource for them when that is not true. More political hatemongering. As far as toll roads we already pay tolls on them. It's called taxes. | ||||
| |
|
10-24-2006, 10:09 PM
| #64 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur.  Reform Party NJ
| |||||
| |
|
10-24-2006, 10:14 PM
| #65 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Michael J Fox with Parkinsons and his national cause > those assclowns BTW its just a youtube video, i know drudge said its gonna be a counter ad but the production quality is so terrible I don't know if they're going to run it during the WS Cmon, everyone loves MJF, and even O'Really was defending the ad tonight against Rush's charges, as have others | ||||
| |
|
10-24-2006, 10:58 PM
| #66 | ||||
| Braccae tuae aperiuntur. Reform Party NJ
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim I love MJF. And I support stem cell research. Just posting the video.
| ||||
| |
|
10-24-2006, 11:06 PM
| #67 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by JaJae I think what hits voters is that (im paraphrasing here, i forget from whom)
MJF is not only very popular and has always been liked by everyone, but he's so YOUNG and has such a harsh disease...people out there are going "hey...that could be me in a couple years" and honestly...it could be you in a couple of years with that... A lot of people on the fence about stem cell research, see such a young guy with his career basically wrecked by the disease, go "shit, that could be me" and go for increased stem cell research | ||||
| |
|
10-24-2006, 11:52 PM
| #68 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Daily Kos: What Missouri Voters Saw Tonight haha talent ran his "response" to MJF ad, which was basically just himself, and then right after a non-party group had its ad up refuting everything he said, it almost had me believing there was a liberal conspiracy haha | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 12:26 AM
| #69 | ||||
| Last Starfighter Independent Northern California
| Hmmmm.,.. what most people posting don't seem to know is... Michael J. Fox Foundation
| ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 09:22 AM
| #70 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41  Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim It doesn't matter what disease he has, he's allowing himself and his illness to be exploited to futher the agenda of lying politicians, biotech firms and cloners. The MO amendment is NOT ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH, which is ALREADY LEGAL IN MISSOURI, it's to make legal and shield cloning, and provide for forced taxpayer funds for it. If these corporations want to create a clone army or a cure for cancer, they can do it on their own dime.
Last edited by AVengeance; 10-25-2006 at 09:44 AM. | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 09:31 AM
| #71 | ||||
| Banned Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by AVengeance Actually, Republicans would disagree with you on that:
http://www.missouricures.com/TV/Facts.wmv The amendment is not the cloning amendment, thanks for trying | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 09:39 AM
| #72 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by AVengeance He's an intelligent man. (Hopefully) he's read the amendment and knows what it entails. He decided it's in his interests to make a commercial supporting a candidate.
Please stop saying he's "allowing himself and his illness to be exploited." An argument could be made that they're exploiting each other but it's not really possible that he's being exploited. He CHOSE to make the commercial. | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 10:35 AM
| #73 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41 Paleolibertarian USA
| SOS, Missouri - Elections: 2006 Proposed Initiative Petitions the full text of the Missouri cloning amendment. | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 10:46 AM
| #74 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41 Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim First, The Coalition For Livesaving Cures sounds like saying "pro life" or "pro choice". You should look into who's bankrolling that organization. I don't think they'd fare so well to be called the "Coalition For Taxpayer Funded Manufacturing Clones In Petri Dishes", but that's a little more accurate than "livesaving cures" emo speak.
Second, I don't give a rat's tail what the Republicans think. I'm a computer programmer, I can read the logic in statements. I just posted the link to the Missouri constitutional amendment that is on the ballot. Read it. It creates a very narrow definition of "cloning" for the sake of argument, then sheilds everything else that is scientifically considered cloning, because it's not defined as such in the amendment. There's also doublespeak concerning compensation for eggs. They know it's a moral issue for women to be selling their eggs for use in this research, so they put in there that a woman has to "donate" the eggs (can't get paid for them), but then says that they can pay her for everything except the egg itself, and even draws an exemption if the woman goes to a fertility clinic to have the eggs removed! | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 10:52 AM
| #75 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by AVengeance wait, so you think a woman who wishes to donate eggs should also have to pay for the storage, removal, doctors, processing, etc of those eggs?
I think the doublespeak is coming from your side. If she wants to donate eggs what's the likelihood that she's going to do it if it's going to cost her $5,000 in transportation, doctor bills, and storage? The opposition is saying "she's going to donate the egg but get a lot of money 'for her trouble' :wink: and we know that wink means she's going to get paid." Bullshit...she's going to get reimbursed for her trouble. It should not cost her money to donate an egg and the opposition is saying that reimbursement is a de facto payment.  I'm on the list for bone marrow donors. If someone needs bone marrow am I going to pay to have it removed from me or does it make sense that I should be reimbursed for the costs I incur? | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 12:40 PM
| #76 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41 Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by 7960 Way to ignore the fertility clinic exemption. You must be a farmer, 'cause you're great at building straw-men.
Also, they ADD IN the other stuff to make it look like that's all they're doing. It's like those math equations in school. You know, where they say "Bobby is ten years old, and sally is eight. If they both have one dollar, how many video games can they play at 25c each?" So you look at the problem, and say "but Bobby is ten!" WTF difference does that make?!? Same thing here. They say extra things to distract you, and in your case, it worked. I hope Missouri voters are smart enough to see through this smokescreen for what it really is. Personally, I don't care if poor liberal college girls sell their eggs or their kidneys or anything else that is their DNA, for research. That's their own problem, as long as they are concenting adults. I realize the anti-amendment folks over there are advertising all the drawbacks, such as stroke and loss of fertility. If liberals are infertile, that does not hurt my feelings at all! I only pointed that out because it's one of the examples in this initiative that involves doublespeak. Another is where they plainly say that "cloning" is banned. They later give a very narrow definition for cloning that is not the correct scientific definition for cloning. Regardless of your "feelings" on the matter, a piece of legislation should not be technically inaccurate, should it? Last edited by AVengeance; 10-25-2006 at 01:01 PM. | ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 12:55 PM
| #77 | ||||
| Dirty Liberal  Democrat South Jersey
| Originally Posted by AVengeance You are aware that some couples are infertile and can't have a baby for a myriad of reasons. One option is to use a donated egg, much like you can use donated sperm. Are you also aware how invasive the process is for donating an egg? You don't just walk in and plop out out. they have to go in and remove it. It's invasive and painful. People woudln't do it for free. that's why there is an exemption in there. Not because they wanted to create a loop hole for wink wink stuff.
| ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 01:07 PM
| #78 | ||||
| Deuteronomy 32:41 Paleolibertarian USA
| Originally Posted by WickedLou9 I understand. Again, I don't care if someone wants to sell their body parts to science; that's their business. What bothers me is that it becomes shielded in this amendment, and the doublespeak used to justify it. This amendment is just unnecessary.
| ||||
| |
|
10-25-2006, 01:53 PM
| #79 | ||||
| ..... your a worthless poster Realist
| Originally Posted by AVengeance
 Not going to bother quoting the rest of your post........ 1. Missouri Cloning Amendment Deceptively Claims to Ban Cloning That article is against the bill and it STILL gives good argument for passing the amendment. The amendment will ban cloning that could produce a child...so they're not cloning PEOPLE, they're cloning CELLS. 2.
3. Page 5 of the amendment basically says women can not receive payment fort their eggs but can be reimbursed for "reasonable costs incurred in connection with the removal, processing, disposal, preservation, quality control, storage, transfer, or donation of human eggs, sperm, or blastocysts, including lost wages of the donor." That's pretty clear to me....no payment for eggs, but reimbursement for expenses occuring because of the donation. The next sentence, "Valuable consideration also does not include the consideration paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law."....how is that different than today? Women who donate eggs to fertility clinics get "paid" now. This doesn't change that. 4. So, we're back to -cloning won't produce a child -can't create a blastocyst unless it's to implant (fertilization) -can't pay women for eggs for research -won't change anything about paying women for eggs for fertility Exactly how is that bad again? | ||||
